Allowed

Velmurugan v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services

Madras HC23 Jun 2026WP Crl.(MD)/3371/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a prison order requiring police escort for a convict's leave. The court modified the order, directing the convict to report daily instead of requiring police accompaniment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified to direct petitioner to report daily at 5.00 p.m. without police escort during ordinary leave.

Velmurugan Vs The Deputy Inspector General of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3371 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.3371 of 2026

¶7

Velmurugan

¶8

...... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Trichy Range, Race Course Road,

¶10

Trichy-620 023.

¶11

2.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy-620 020.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

4.State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Thangachimadam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

...... Respondents

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3371 of 2026

¶18

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent vide proceedings in No.RO.TRY/303/2026-CA dated 03.06.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to grant 28 days ordinary leave without police escort to the petitioner namely Velmurugan, S/o.Nalliah, aged about 45 years, life convict, PID No.298020 (EN R 809) confined at Central Prison, Trichy.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent made in No.RO.TRY/303/2026-CA dated 03.06.2026 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to grant 28 days ordinary leave without police escort to the petitioner, who is presently serving a sentence at Central Prison, Trichy.

¶23

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3371 of 2026

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State of TN (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶27

The petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent seeking 28 days ordinary leave. The first respondent, through the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2026, granted ordinary leave for 28 days subject to the condition that the petitioner will be accompanied by an escort. This condition has been put to challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the State of TN (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner has undergone a sentence of 5 years, 4 months and 20 days and till now, has not availed either emergency leave or ordinary leave.

¶29

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the reason for which the ordinary leave has been sought, we are inclined to modify the condition imposed by the first respondent to the effect that the petitioner shall report before the 4^th

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3371 of 2026

¶33

respondent daily at 5.00 p.m. during the entire ordinary leave period. The other conditions imposed by the first respondent shall stand as they are and

¶34

the sureties shall be executed before the jail authorities.

¶35

This Writ Petition (Criminal) is allowed with the above

¶36

directions. No costs.

¶37

[N.A.V., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 23.06.2026

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶39

Indu

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3371 of 2026

¶43

¶44

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Trichy Range, Race Course Road, Trichy-620 023.

¶45

2.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy-620 020.

¶46

3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶47

4.The Inspector of Police, Thangachimadam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶48

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3371 of 2026

¶52

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶53

Indu

¶54

W.P.Crl.(MD).No.3371 of 2026

¶55

23.06.2026

¶56

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Velmurugan v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velmurugan v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager, Vs Tmt.Sowpackiyam

Jeyanthi Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

M.Pushpa Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Nivetha Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

The Branch Manger Vs Magalingam

Rajakani Vs The Deputy Inspector of Prison